Re: fairly current mysql v postgresql comparison need for
| От | Mike Mascari |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: fairly current mysql v postgresql comparison need for |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3E7F763B.5040200@mascari.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: fairly current mysql v postgresql comparison need for (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Supposedly MySQL did add MVCC in some fashion, so I assume that's how > they would do it. Yep. The row-level locking remark threw me. According to 7.5.8 of their docs: "In the InnoDB transaction model the goal has been to combine the best properties of a multi-versioning database to traditional two-phase locking. InnoDB does locking on row level and runs queries by default as non-locking consistent reads, in the style of Oracle. The lock table in InnoDB is stored so space-efficiently that lock escalation is not needed: typically several users are allowed to lock every row in the database, or any random subset of the rows, without InnoDB running out of memory." Now I'm not sure why someone would need InnoDB Hot Backup: http://www.innodb.com/hotbackup.html when the --single-transaction option to mysqldump would provide a consistent snapshot. Mike Mascari mascarm@mascari.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: